Now, this is the kind of things that makes me sad that intelligence among girls is considered a negative threatening trait among my students’ culture. Or just intelligence in mainstream American society.

She’s got screen prescence.

Also, props to anyone that includes a clarifying footnote on a facts montage.

Interesting presentation — I presume she’s a fan of Kelly from the RRS?

It occurs to me that this might be a good video to forward to all of those people who keep sending right-wing forwards. That is, unless they’re likely to drool over the hot ranting girl rather than listen to her words, which are pretty much spot on…

Off-topic: the polls have closed in the Canadian federal election. It looks like another Conservative minority government. But if you add up the two main opposition parties, Liberal and New Democrat, they’d win. Sigh.

The Bloc Quebecois (independence party) may take Quebec. At one point some years ago they were Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. ðŸ™‚

Wow I’m old. I just don’t get this YouTubing thing, where everyone’s an actor and you have to have all kinds of quick cuts and color shifts.

I want my words in a nice sequential line, one after the other, with pages I can flip back and forth. And I’d prefer that fashion, body features, and personal symmetry did not have to enter every discussion.

I guess my point is this: If she was merely a bimbo trying to sound convincing, then the cleavage thing would clearly have been some kind of distraction ploy. My attention was certainly more focused on the content of her presentation. Mostly. I mean her words. And stuff.

Great video. Her channel definitely looks worthy of my subscription. I completely agree, and have to tell theists that same rant on a daily basis. I was just planning on doing a video similar to it, actually, since I have to explain why I’m outspoken so often.

I can’t believe there are actually states where atheists are barred from public office–why hasn’t some gung-ho atheist ballbuster taken this to court with the intent of having it struck down? Would you necessarily have to be elected and denied the position before you could claim it as a discriminatory practice? I know we atheists don’t have it as badly here as folks do in some places, but I find that really disgusting.

And incidentally, as a male I’ll certainly admit she’s not hard on the eyes, but I can’t help but wince to see how many people are so rapid to comment just on her looks. It doesn’t convey much class or depth, I’m sorry to say.

Nick, from what I understand, what the federal government gives, the individual states cannot take away. So, even if a state like Maryland has a “no atheists in public office” law, it doesn’t matter, because the US Constitution expressly says “there shall be no religious test”.
Of course, actually getting elected when people know you’re an atheist is a separate problem…

So wait – just because she made the appeal doesn’t mean it’s not appropriate. Are you implying that the natural desire for sex is worse than imposing artificial, non-scientific mores of when sexual behavior should occur, and how it should be conducted in a person’s life? If so, I’m not sure that position is very defensible with rational discussion.

Also, can anyone watch a video of a person who *happens* to be female without commenting on the person’s sex? If the person was male, I doubt their sex would even be mentioned once. So please, everyone, stop acting like stereotypical, unthinking, sexist Americans. Thanks.

“I can’t believe there are actually states where atheists are barred from public office”

It’s in the state constitutions, but there was a supreme court case that makes these types of clauses null and void (forget which one). As an atheist resident of Texas, I figure they would just botch any effort to remove the clause anyway.

Look what they did when they tried to ban gay marriage by constitutional ammendment:

“Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Eh, so that bans gay marriage? By a (ahem) straight reading, it seems to ban *all* marriage. Whatever. The words mean what they want them to mean, nothing more nothing less.

Well now, it seems that in light of the color of your plea, perhaps you should be made aware that there are different types of *thinking* that American males engage in. Some of us tend to engage in it frequently. Most of us can censor the thoughts generated by it before they become spoken (or posted) language. But none of us American males consider the broad-brush stroke of *sexist* precise, accurate, or appealing. Then again, some of us do.

Well, I respectfully disagree with you. I think I can find a very accomplished, thoughtful, opinionated academic who also disagrees. But, whatever.

“What I’m saying is that stating something is right because it’s natural isn’t a valid argument, that’s all.”

And all I was saying is that it doesn’t necessarily make it invalid either. As a matter of fact, if we were academically debating the point, I would say that the argument for natural behaviors/actions/events would be easier to argue than prescribed interference with them. Small example – global warming. I’m of the opinion that trying to understand and assimilate natural progressions is far better than trying to overly manipulate and control them. Not that it’s not possible.

but I can’t help but wince to see how many people are so rapid to comment just on her looks.

I’d be more inclined to agree if I hadn’t been struck, immediately and repeatedly, with how much she was trying to promote them. Can’t see her forehead most of the time, but we can always see her cleavage. And the green cast just happened to bring out her eyes…

That said, I liked the message, but thought it could be a little better. Many of the ‘religious’ wars could be easily debated, and virtually no wars were solely about religion – they usually have their own economic, social, and political motivations. It’s more of a valid point that religion played such a part in helping to motivate them, furthering a cause by crassly manipulating a populace, rather than as a causative agent.

I also can’t help but think one of the reactions is going to be, “another angry atheist.” There’s a fine line between fervent and ‘losing control,’ and while I don’t think she ever crossed it, it’d be easy enough to argue that she was becoming ’emotional.’

But mostly, I didn’t like the accusatory tone at the end. Scolding people rarely motivates them, even when they badly deserve it – in fact, those people are probably the most resistant. Creating an “Activist Me against Lazy You” stance is likely to work against the message a bit.

Don’t get me wrong, I applaud the effort and agree wholeheartedly with the message, and I’m glad to see her, and many like her, putting themselves out there to be heard. I just think some refinement could help. Personally, my beef is over the lack of critical-thinking skills in today’s societies, and find this to be more important than focusing on one aspect of it. Religion would certainly be an early victim of improved logical capabilities, but so would political rhetoric, quack medicine, and new age mumbo jumbo, to name a few. And it has the added benefit of being much harder to demonize.

Agree with her words, but the focus on female cleavage as well as face is analogous to watching male butt-crack plus face for many women: viscerally appealing to half the population while rather obvious & disgusting to the other half: ie not most effective.

Focusing on just the face, instead of that plus the cleavage crack, perhaps would have been more intellectually effective with more people.

Shoe on the other foot: equal in effectiveness to this vid might be a trim, young, intelligent guy with lovely delineation of rectus abdominis sections displaying that abdominopelvic region while making a logical argument.

In this case, I’d be aware that my appreciation of his oral logic is separate from my appreciation of his lovely abs, but I wouldn’t like by watching it either the ideas that some others do not discern between the two nor that the vid male was willing to try to manipulate those people because of this, to convert them to his view. Not liking either manipulatees nor manipulators.

@Shane, 28: Just because you can see someone’s cleavage doesn’t mean you should make a comment about it. Also, I’m talking about comments like this one as well:
“Really Really hawt.

I like smart chicks.”
It’s not just this video either; people here tend to evaluate anything that involves a female based on looks. If you’re going to be that petty, you might want to do yourself a favor and not tell the world about it.

I’d like to share a sigh with you, Monado in Toronto (#8). Conservatives took South West BC and most of the prairies. Goodbye any hope for real climate change action. So long safe-injection site. Au revoir arts funding……

Not only theists oppose homosexual marriage (and many theists are fine with hospital visitation rights and domestic partnerships as long as it is not called “marriage,” the name of the sacrament).

And by the way, religious “institutions” are 501(c)(3) organizations, just like Cato Institute and United Way (which sometimes funds Planned Parenthood clinics), and they are prohibited from participating in campaigns for public offices and lobbying is quite restricted. Furthermore, they are exempt from income taxes but not from all federal taxes. So I do not really know what she meant by the comments made while flashing all of the fancy architecture.

I am outraged that I cannot purchase my favorite BJ drinks on Sunday morning when I am in Dallas, and of course, evolution should be taught in school biology. But the superiority complex, the raw defensiveness, and the compelling, compassionate sensationalism (and the tits that everyone is mostly addressing) are unnecessary and distracting from reason.

@Alex, 32: Why do you keep cutting out fragments of what I’m saying? The reason I felt she sounded stupid was because she sounded “kind of like a politician reading off a list of talking points, except doing a poor job at it.” In the example I gave of this, it sounded like she thought creationism isn’t scientific because it’s not “a scientifically accredited study.”
And why the appeal to authority?

I’m wasn’t arguing one way or the other. I was saying that she was wrong to state sexuality is OK because it’s natural. Just because her opponents’ arguments are wrong doesn’t mean her arguments can’t be as well.

You would be wrong to argue that “trying to understand and assimilate natural progressions is far better than trying to overly manipulate and control them” if your reason for arguing that is because it’s natural. For some reason I doubt that’s why you feel that way.

Hells yeah! We need more people like this on our side. Young, articulate, intelligent, and (don’t kill me) attractive. Seriously, she just broke two major stereotypes about atheists: they’re all ugly, and there are no atheist women.

Eh. Here on Pharyngula she’s “preaching to the choir” (as it were). The regulars would probably go “woohoo” for the message whether she was showing cleavage or dressed in a hijab.

To drag my mind up into the gutter, if manipulation of the gonads is what it takes to get someone to first consider the applicability of an adaptable worldview over their present doctrinally dictated fixed outlook, is it “bad”? Is it immoral to make use of the naturally evolved sex impulses of those too [adjective] to be persuaded by other means AND too [adjective] to discount such tactics, as mechanism to induce them to consider an alternative course? A larger concern might be that the whacko faction most worth converting will see the cleavage, react briefly “slut”, have their present worldview reinforced, and the presentation mode’s consequent difficulties may outweigh any persuasive benefits from same.

(I suspect the math may be similar to this bit I wrote up meta-analyzing someones analysis of fundies.)

It is the religious that can be the most hurtful at those times. Like being told by a priest at the funeral that even though the person was not entitled to a service he would do it anyway because he, the priest, is sensitive to the needs of the family! The implication was that the person was a suicide (she wasn’t) and didn’t deserve a funeral.

And the day after the funeral, coincidently, receiving one of those bible society tracts in the mail saying that if you’ve lost someone recently they are burning in hell. Nice.

Not only theists oppose homosexual marriage (and many theists are fine with hospital visitation rights and domestic partnerships as long as it is not called “marriage,” the name of the sacrament).

Marriage is now a secular institution, the word itself has come to mean a union between two people. It’s foolish of Christians to try and claim the word as sacred, it ceased being sacred a long time ago. Now it’s a descriptor for being in a committed long term relationship with all the legal rights and duties that come with that. It makes no sense to give homosexuals the rights and not the name, the name is synonymous with the rights that come with it. To deny them the name in a secular world would be treating them as inferior.

I think that gogreen18’s message is pretty damn good. She put together many of the topics that atheists must be more aggressive to address, and she compiled them together into a well-organized presentation. I’m impressed that she managed to sum up the various conflicts in such a smooth, short video.

As for the secondary issue of her cleavage…well, I’ll say this from personal experience: as a lesbian, I can understand the attraction. As a woman, I know I’d feel a bit ticked if I delivered a philosophical video and the only reaction I got from some people was, “WHOA! HAWT BOOBAGE!” Lol.

Zeekster @ #39, it was me @ #28.
I think the the difference between your picture and cleavage is credibility. There is no way a guy like the A&F model could make any sort of serious presentation that way. He would forever be seen as a himbo no matter what. A bit of cleavage though, while titillating sometimes, doesn’t always distract completely… not always… sometimes.

Pretty much a spot on comment, I thought. Emperors and pawns, the manipulators and the manipulatees, whenever we have a human interaction we are always manipulating or being manipulated to some extent.

Some complained about the way she put her message, and I have to agree somewhat with what they say, often being confrontational isn’t helpful, that said, both the carrot and the stick are necessary, I feel. In “Thank you for smoking” the character Nick Naylor explains to his son that when he is debating, he isn’t trying to convince his opponent – he can’t do that – he is targeting the audience. Even if the pretty young lady didn’t convince a single one of you she is right, at least she got you thinking about how you do engage with the “other side”, and probably made a few people consider that perhaps they should be doing more.

We DO need more loud voices like this one. We also need quiet, rational voices. We need all types.

I couldn’t agree more. Every atheist in the world should be pointing at and laughing at religious assholes every day. I’m in favor of relentless ridicule. Christians, Muslims, and religious Jews should be made to feel ashamed of themselves. Every single religious retard on earth brainwashes their own children. That’s child abuse and there’s nothing moderate about it. All religious people, no matter how harmless they think they are, are part of the problem. All religious people believe there’s a magic fairy hiding in the clouds. That’s insane and childish and they need to be told it’s insane and childish.

I feel guilty, but no matter what she was saying 30 seconds of teenage melodrama monologue underscored with emphatic boobage and I have to strain to take her seriously.

I’m not a fan of the sex sells technique. If you have a good point, you have a good point. Her tone at the end makes me ill despite the fact that I agree with her to a large extent. It’s just that being emotionally badgered is EXACTLY one of the most infuriating aspects of religious speech.

I don’t like being yelled at by anyone, whether they have a point or not.

Crikey, people, they’re just breasts! THEY ARE JUST BREASTS. Get over it. Sometimes there is no hiding them. They’re there, they’re large, and they are in a prominent position. Besides, the high-collared look often makes a buxom woman look awful. It does for me, anyway.

You can try and bring up a male equivalent but there really isn’t one, because men do not have two melon-sized pubic regions right in the middle of their chests.

So she shows a little cleavage. So what? What’s wrong with making oneself attractive? If she didn’t try to look attractive, people would call her a man-hating nerd or something.

Impressive. This is a video that I will have to share with my friends. I hope that more atheists watch this and are a little more motivated to speak out. We may not believe in God, but we are absolutely affected by the belief in him.

It was not clear that I was not intending to justify the semantic defense rather trying to illustrate that even mostly unreasonable theists (e.g. one with whom I share coefficient of relatedness of ½) will agree that the next-of-kin or legal spouse stipulation is inappropriate and irrelevant.

I haven’t seen the video yet since they block Youtube here, but really what’s the big deal about enjoying seeing clevage? Why can’t we comment about the attractiveness of the messenger, and why does that detract from the message itself? Do we have to act like asexual drones in order to have a valid opinion?

It was not clear that I was not intending to justify the semantic defense rather trying to illustrate that even mostly unreasonable theists (e.g. one with whom I share coefficient of relatedness of ½) will agree that the next-of-kin or legal spouse stipulation is inappropriate and irrelevant.

Fair enough, I just find that position of those theists to be quite absurd (for the reasons I highlighted above).

the math showing that environmental influence has more to do with world view than does IQ (assuming that that is what you meant): I agree with the conclusion (although I don’t know the data behind the math you present in the graph) but because of previous evidence I’ve seen

using whatever we know of so far hard-wired evolutionary “gut” (& yeah lower) responses to try to convert those people who rely primarily on them upon which to base their decisions: no, I still don’t agree that this is ultimately the best strategy: maybe more effective in the short-term but not the long

but your view is probably more pragmatic than my more idealistic and so wishful one

Damn I am definitly getting old and jaded, I didnt’t even notice the clevage(did notice her eyes though) Had to watch second time just to see what the fuss was about. More importantly the general message was right on.

To the ancient Greeks, who waged war for political influence or economic gain, the mere idea of a war fought for any kind of religious reason was total insanity. That’s because, in large part, the ancient Greeks were polytheists and had this synchronistic notion that all you needed to do was bring in their gods into your pantheon, and all was cool.

She doesn’t seem to show that much cleavage in most of the videos I watched. I think that this video is deliberately the equivalent of the catchy radio song, whereas most of the other videos are the insightful tracks the fans listen to. This is the outreach.

Well, I do and don’t blame all those commenting on her appearance – I think she has a nice bit to say, and the content was great. But it’s not like anyone could miss what was happening visually (and I’m referring to the still photos). Good video, either way.

Noticed eyes, lips, teeth, nose, but not cleavage. Attractive woman to be sure, but I listened much more to what she said than how she looked. And I like what she said. And thanks to her for metioning the genocide against the Cathars in France and Italy. The Cathars, a Marcionian/Glostic Christian sect, were once the third most common religious group in Europe after Catholics and Muslims and may even have outnumbered Muslims in the 1300s. The crusade against the Chathars is the reason Occitan is an almost dead language (though you might argue that Catalan and Occitan are the same thing).

If you want to see someone who posts similar content to youtube but who never looks the camera in the eye, check out “Atheist Blind Chick”. Only blind person n YT as far as I know and quite the authority on text-to-voice software.

Her request to atheists: It’s time to fucking do something.
I couldn’t agree more. Every atheist in the world should be pointing at and laughing at religious assholes every day. I’m in favor of relentless ridicule.

Let me be blunt BobC. Ridicule is your only weapon because you are stupid.

Maria @ 81 (though this is addressed to everyone who made similar comments as well as those complaining about ‘gawd she’s hawt’ comments): “I think more people would have listened if they didn’t sacrifice her eyebrows in favor of her cleavage! Sorry, as great as her message is, it’s delivered in a sexist, distracting format. That bugs.”

I’m a guy in my thirties, an atheist and queer as a three dollar bill. Some of my best friends are women, but I’m just totally not interested in women sexually. I watched that video and said: wow, what an incredible young woman. She’s intelligent, has stage presence, and she’s incredibly adorable. She’s detailed without being dull, obviously gets her facts right, and is passionate about what she believes. She is also cute, has a nice rack, and that red ribbon and the lighting sets off her green eyes amazingly well.

I mean, c’mon… I’m a kinsey six and even I can see she’s hawt. But more importantly she’s using that hawtness as her gimmick just like that ask a ninja guy uses campy ninja humor. Hell PZ does the same thing… he gives readers substantive information in an entertaining way. And you can bet if PZ had looks like that he’d be using them as well.

Lastly, to expect straight men with a pulse to watch that and notice her obvious sexual attractiveness is like asking me to watch men’s swimming or gymnastics and not be interested. At best, you’ll get people who hide their sexism a little better – though often the end up hiding it from themselves too. Like idiots who say they are not racist because they don’t see race. Sorry but race and that rack can be pretty obvious. You will only fail to see them if you are blind or have epic cognitive dissonance defenses.

Man, that poster boy was hot! I think in part the concentration of the video-girl’s appearance is created in part from the medium she chose. Video is visual, so that is what you notice first, what it looks like.

I found the in-your-face at a funny angle delivery a bit anoying and I noticed the angle made her cleavage more noticable and wondered momentarily if she did it that way on purpose and if it was really a good idea. Then I noticed the teeth – super-straight, perfectly aligned and blindingly white – oh yeah, she’s definitely American.

Message was mostly good, I balked a bit at the ‘creationism not a scientifically accredited study’ line and I didn’t like the ending. How dare she try to make me feel guilty! That wasn’t a ‘call to arms’, but a ‘shame on you for not doing your bit’.

This video and the comments it’s generated highlights one of the biggest reasons I like internet forums and blogs. I admit I made the mistake of picking a nom de net that made it pretty obvious that I’m female, but you can’t see me, so it’s easier to get a message past the initial judgement from appearances thing, that always seems to happen face-to-face. You can’t tell if I’m an old, fat, smelly gramma or a nubile sassy pre-pubescent, and I ain’t tellin’.

Gosh, it must be tough to be an atheist in the US. Here in the godless UK, we don’t have to think much about religion since even the faithful rarely talk about it; there are only a few evangelizing nutcases around and they are a very minor irritant not worth arguing with.

Thanks for posting this PZ. More and more people need to stand up and speak their minds about religion and it’s negative role in the world. As Dawkins puts it, “Religion needs to be taught it’s place.”

As said previously in this thread, yeah most comments are on the tits.

This is precisely what she wants, of course, but the other important thing is that it’s actually going to snap and grab the attention of young male audiences, and possibly young female lesbian audiences, oh I don’t know, I’ve only been one of those.

Anyway, if that pair is responsible for even ONE young male taking notice, listening to what she says, and start questioning then it’s certainly worthy. Granted the stuffy academics will hate this kind of approach, but it works. Most people who post on this site, and I’m most definitely NOT included, are of the older variety with scientific achievments and the like, granted I may be setting up straw men here, but… ah well.

Think, people are willing to betray their families to convert to other religion for partners, hopefully this will make people realise (ok ok, anyone who’s interested in something like this) will listen to reason and drop the last god.

I’ve never made a scientific achievement. I just ended up here years ago because of the silly arguments I heard theists make for their case.

While non-academics will not always employ the best arguments, they can usually be trusted to come up with a better presentation. Since it’s OK to revise your thinking in non-theistic traditions I don’t really see the problem. I’m sure plenty of people here would offer corrections to her arguments if they felt that to be necessary.

The religion and war argument bothers me usually because there are plenty of instances where it’s clearly not the sole or main cause. Clearly any involvement in wars is contrary to their claim on the moral high ground, so thats enough to point out.

Wow! She’s rockin’. Great rant. Great cleavage. If I were younger and single I’d be wanting to go find that girl. Love a girl with a fine mind. The fact that she’s totally hot doesn’t hurt. I think I need to watch that again.

Give her a break, people. She explains about the cleavage in one of her other videos. She likes that look. It’s called fashion. She’s only 18, at an age when girls who’ve got it, flaunt it. Sheesh! You sound like a bunch of whiney stuck-up Christians…

Good video, and works well as a call to arms for the armchair atheists, a good follow-up would be one suggesting things they can actually do to change things, though of course she may still be working that out for herself.

As for the comments about her looks, well the ones here are nothing compared to the YouTube ones which truly are nauseating.

The other videos, especially the ones about deconversion are rather more interesting than this one, which is (as noted) the hook to get you in to her more thoughtful ones.

I’m totally with the “well done” camp on this one. Yes, she’s a very attractive young lady (although, I must admit I was far too captivated by those stunning eyes to even see the cleavage until I read the comments on here), and I totally agree with what she’s saying. The presentation style didn’t speak to me, but, as a middle aged hardcore atheist, I suspect I’m not the target audience.

But, as has been said elsewhere, cleavage or not, MTV style delivery or not, if it makes one person stop, look at themselves, think, and act, then it’s a success. So full kudos to Laci.

OK, so sure, the camera angle was set to keep some cleavage in the frame, but really, her outfit is fairly modest by conventional Western standards.

Some of the complaints here sound more like they’re coming from a Middle Eastern Mullah whining about a Miss Universe contestant who’s talent involves bouncing on a pogo stick… in the nude.

Consider this: eyes, teeth and a nice smile are sexy too, so maybe she should cover those up as well. Seriously, if a few inches of cleavage in your field of vision is such a distraction, that says more about you than it does about the woman with the cleavage.

I’m coining a new word:

boobists (noun) a discriminatory belief system based upon
hatred or intolerance of breasts.

She’s better than you, mate. And it’s not because she’s cute with nice cleavage. She knows how to effectively speak on the emotional level while conveying her points on the intellectual level. And that is damn hard to do.

Wait a minute… what the…? Did she say atheists are banned from the Boy Scout movement in America?

I’d never heard of that before, but a quick Google/Wikipedia search just confirmed that this appears to be true.

I guess I’ve had it too easy in relatively secular Australia. I was in the Boy Scouts for a while as a kid in the 60’s but the occasional mentions of “God” were just considered to be a quaint historical quirk – certainly not a core entry requirement.

@Alex, #21: No, I’m implying that she sounds stupid; kind of like a politician reading off a list of talking points, except doing a poor job at it.

What I’m saying is that stating something is right because it’s natural isn’t a valid argument, that’s all.

You’re not making a case based on her argument. You’re making a bad case on your being called on your bad argument.

Sex is, in fact, a natural element of human nature is engaged in by sexually mature humans. Religion does, in fact, attempt to control and proscribe sexual conduct through abnormal conditions, including age restrictions, and then does lay a whole load of bullshit on those who break it’s abnormal proscriptions.

She’s only pointing that out.

I think the biggest issue with your argument is that you seem to believe that an appeal argument is, by default, a fallacy. It’s NOT. It’s only sloppy thinking that makes it so in the minds of many.

I’ve felt for years that the fallacy should be called “INAPPROPRIATE” appeal… Not appeal. Just to help clear up the concept. But, if my daughter won’t listen to me, why should anyone else.

Because calling on the knowledge of appropriate experts is required. We call it research, documentation and support. Whereas calling on the arguments of inappropriate experts is generally to be avoided and tends to lead to crankdom.

She’s got what my girlfriend and her sister call the dread “internet disease”. This is a disorder endemic to MySpace users and the like that causes people to take pictures of themselves from a steep angle with the camera above them. Usually this is accompanied with a good deal of make-up and cleavage. Check and check– I immediately recognized the symptoms. But though the poor girl has a bad case of Internet Disease, she makes good points and does so in an impassioned way. So there is still hope…..there is always hope.

Even in the UK this happens (OK so we have an established church, but where it matters we’re significantly more secular than the US)

The Brownies (the primary school version of the Girl Guides) have “to love my God” in their oath, and in the early 90s an atheist took them to court so she could substitute a more appropriate line in her oath. She lost.

There was a recent issue in Scotland where a cub scout refused to pledge allegiance to the Queen, and was barred from joining.

Her visual appeal is not to be disparaged. Sex does sell, regardless of any opinions one may have about it. If she was an ugly old crone (or even an ugly young crone), or some fat middle-aged guy, or anything but a pretty young lady, how many folks would have turned it off early on, justifying it as “I’ve heard this before” or perhaps just listened, instead of watching, and missed the factoids coming across the screen.

Yes, I noticed all aspects of her appearance – hair, eyes, teeth, red band, and cleavage. I also noticed that while there were obvious cuts where she may have forgotten her text or flubbed a line, she did it without reading: her eyes stared directly at the camera with no shift in focus the entire time. (Yes, to notice this I had to spend a large amount of time staring at her eyes, with only brief glances elsewhere – she had my attention.)

She was direct, she was definitely passionate, she used music and brief glimpses of imagery to good effect, and I agree with nearly all her talking points (maybe all – but I need to do some research. See? Her message has gotten me active!). The fact that she was easy on the eyes made it easier for me to get her entire message, not more difficult.

I don’t see her final question, “Why don’t you [care]?” as insulting – while most of us DO care, few of us act like we care (and I’m guilty here), because we are not active in the cause to stop the theocracy in America (and elsewhere). If we care but are not doing the best we can do fix what we see as a problem, we should feel guilty and the message is rightfully meant for us. If we are already doing the best we can or just aren’t that passionate about the subject (but why read this blog then?), then we have nothing to feel guilty about and can rest easily knowing she wasn’t talking to us at the end.

…and in the early 90s an atheist took them to court so she could substitute a more appropriate line in her oath. She lost.

Well, of course. Firstly, the Boy Scouts, Brownies etc. are private organisations in the UK (as far as I know, they don’t receive any state support, or any privileges beyond those extended to all charities), so they are completely entitled to set their own membership rules under UK law. Secondly, until the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 there was no express guarantee of freedom of religion in English law, so even if the Scouts etc. had been receiving government financial support, this would not have been illegal in any case.

There is nothing wrong with a private organisation determining, of their own free will, who they will admit to membership. Would you expect a church to allow atheists to hold church membership? I do think, however, that there are sufficient legal grounds in the US for arguing that the Boy Scouts should lose such financial and other support as they receive from the federal government, on the basis that it contravenes the First Amendment.

All things considered, I think her video would have been more compelling if she had shown more face and less cleavage.

I disagree.She could have done a little more fact-checking, such as saying that the Boy Scouts are government funded. They are a private organization, although there are instances of them receiving taxpayer-funded perks such as cheap use of facilities.In addition to the Boy Scouts, a surprising number of organizations in the USA discriminate against atheists; the American Legion and the VFW for two.

Her revealing dress is standard issue for the sub-22 set. They don’t see anything wrong with it. I have to work hard to get my high school broadcasters to even consider the effect of low-cut tops. I tell them, “The camera adds a cup size.” The sense of appropriateness for cleavage view has shifted.

Shortage of women’s perspectives in these comments, so I’m weighing in.

That’s one beautiful, passionate, and intelligent young woman in that video. Since video is a visual medium, those qualities are likely to be noticed in that order. Most important, her argument is right one! It’s great to see the next generation caring and being active.

Since she considers sex to be natural, I’d bet that she’d consider it natural for people to enjoy her physical appearance, including her cleavage. That is, after all, the point of exposing cleavage. And since she’s intelligent, I’d also bet that she’d consider it rude for people to explicitly comment on her cleavage. Why can’t men enjoy the view politely, instead of sticking their feet in their mouths?

Her points (the spoken ones) might be more at the forefront if she were wearing something else, but I can’t criticize. The whole “being female” thing is a Catch-22. We’re wrong if we work at being attractive, and we’re wrong if we don’t. We’re valued for our looks, or we’re not valued at all. We’re viewed as either sluts or dogs. There’s no option in between. If our breasts are falling out of our clothes, we’re seen as selling ourselves. If they’re not, then we’re frumpy, ugly plain Janes.

She looks lovely (that would be the polite way of commenting on a lady’s appearance), and if that helps her to be heard, that’s great. Both the prudes and the slobbering perverts have some fucked up priorities.

On the issue of passion, that’s another Catch-22. When we show passion we’re labeled as “angry atheists,” and when we don’t people think we’re robots. “Angry, militant, anti-social” stereotypes are used to try to disarm women, gays, racial minorities, atheists, anyone who those wielding the stereotypes would like to see being meek, conciliatory, and impotent in society.

Wow… I can’t count how many of you are completely proving the point she’s making by having the nerve, in any way, to comment negatively on her appearance in this video. Her point may very well have been to establish a counter-perspective to the stereotype how many people believe an “atheist” looks.

Who the heck are any of you to decide how she should have dressed or presented herself in order to make her point? If you watched the video and enjoyed it for its content, then good for you. If you watched it and enjoyed it for the visuals AND the content, well then also good for you. And if you watched the video and enjoyed the visuals whilst totally ignoring the content, well, how very shallow of you… and good for you… at least take something positive away from it.

But if you watched the video and are now only concerned with trite commentary passing judgment on CHOICE to present herself in whatever fashion she pleases, in whatever manner she believes will have the effect she desires, then please kindly go fuck yourself.

I must be dead. I was focusing more on her words than her cleavage. (With all the internet porn out there and the fact we’d never date, it didn’t matter as much.)

As for the states banning Atheists from public office, yes I know the federal constitution takes priority but states have been known to enforce their laws over federal laws. Examples range from the Jim Crow laws to medical marijuana. But last I heard, the last time an Atheist try to run in one of those states he was murdered and no one really investigated who did it.

I was going to rip on her – because I’m an old man who hates these damn punk kids with their damn loud music, crazy hairstyles, and weird piercings – but then she busted out Ashoka and the Taipeng rebellion so I had to give her props.

Most teenagers probably could name more than “The Crusades” and “The Witch Trials” but she at least filled out her list with some things not found in History 101 for Freshmen.

She probably has really bad hair… just on the top of her head, so she has angled the camera to hide that!

ðŸ˜‰

Seriously I think that Jeanette (#135) nailed it. I couldn’t put it better, because I’m a guy who is very distracted around attractive women (beyond my normal level of distraction), at least up until the point that they start talking, where I lose all interest if they are imbeciles, or am intrigued if they aren’t. Laci is intriguing. She would still be just as intriguing if the camera was angled higher.

Wow! What a great rant! If there are more young people like her out there that she can reach and get thinking then there is more hope for the future than I thought. Awesome presentation and delivery! Brava! Keep up the good work.

It is rare to hear of female atheists, most likely because atheists tend to be angry at the world – a trait commonly defines young men. She certainly wasn’t shy on the militant front though; indeed, I scarcely believe the young lady could have been more combative.

So yeah I see a couple of people booing the mention she’s a pretty young woman with a nice rack. If you don’t think she maybe thought about picking a shirt with a little room for the girls to poke out so maybe she could attract a few more people to her video that otherwise would have been ignored, your dumb. It’s a marketing gimmick. Get over it. imrational on youtube had a similar video up since 2 years ago and its not the one posted here. Zar is right.

Sorry @NickG, but that excuse or explanation just doesn’t wash for a whole lot of reasons. She doesn’t need her damned boobs to prove her point. She can be entertaining without using her cleavage. She can be attractive without ramming it home (so to speak) by framing the attention on her fracking chest. To keep lowering the camera to show more and more boobage isn’t just entertaining, it’s distracting.

It’s just not necessary to put that much focus on them when making a serious point — especially a point that damned good. It only distracts and produces the Neanderthal “heh heh hawt boobage” comments. You’ve got to admit that you’re not going to be distracted the way a straight male is. She’s only appealing to one of your heads. Appealing to both heads at once is, in this case, at cross purposes.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for hawt boobage. Hell, I’ve got hawt boobage (34DD baby!). While I love the “flaunt it if you’ve got it” philosophy, I don’t use it to sell my writing, get a job, or get my blog linked to by political pundits. I want people to hear what I have to say. Hawt boobage is totally incidental and NOT LOCKED IN FRAME.

I also ditto much of what Jeannette #135 said. It is a Catch-22, but in this case it doesn’t have to be.

Who are you fucking perverts? After 44 seconds there are only a few glimpses of cleavage. (And, the camera wasn’t fixed.)
She did a great job. Do as someone else suggested, close your eyes and listen.
People are allowed to dress any way they want and guess what, young people dress sexy, get over it.

ERV, Ill bite on that question too. Why is Kelly not a good role model? Ive seen a couple of videos, and that silly debate with Comfort and Cameron. I find her to be shrill, with an annoying speaking style, but I never thought she seemed morally deviant. Of the RRS, I only visited their site once. It seemed targeted to a different demographic than the one that claimed me.

Maria @148: “You’ve got to admit that you’re not going to be distracted the way a straight male is. She’s only appealing to one of your heads. Appealing to both heads at once is, in this case, at cross purposes.”

So then I better stop watching Anderson Cooper and Jon Stewart since I obviously can’t be trusted to listen to what they are saying since they are both epic hawt. (Especially when Anderson goes on assignment and looks like an A&F model.) I guess I will have to stick to Rachel Maddow or something.

WTF, Maria? You are assuming that men are incapable of both appreciating the message and how the messenger presents himself or herself. That’s half-way to the argument that women should wear burqas and be kept separate from men who are not family since men can’t be trusted to interact with an uncovered woman without getting a boner, impure thoughts or whatever.

Now I will give you that guys are much more attracted to visual stimuli and that we’re a tad more interested in sex than some women. But that doesn’t mean that women (or men for that matter) should have to respond by covering up their beauty or sexuality. In fact, that screwed up expectation of presenting a public asexuality is often used to discriminate not only against women but against sexual minorities. (‘I don’t mind if you are queer as long as you don’t act that way in public.’)

So good for her.

“I don’t use it to sell my writing, get a job, or get my blog linked to by political pundits. I want people to hear what I have to say.”

Great. And I also guess you’ve never gotten off of a traffic ticket (or accepted any other perks) due to the epic boobage?

C’mon. You use what you’ve got when you can. I once got off a traffic ticket because I offered to write the cop an rx for bronchitis. If you are a racial minority and you get offered a scholarship because of your minority status, just take it. If you are a woman who has epic boobs and that will get more people to listen to your message you should have no qualms about doing it. If you want to take what you think is the ‘high road’, fine. But don’t condemn people for making a different choice than you do (especially when in her case its apparently quite effective.)

We all get benefits and harms from who we are, what we look like, and how we act. My last job I got in a large part because I am gay. I’ve also gotten my ass kicked for the same reason. However I also am only rarely pegged as gay because of my mannerisms and clothing preferences. So to make things fair, I should wear a tee shirt that says ‘I’m a fag’ when I go to Lubbock TX in December to lecture? I should be OK with getting the negatives but not the positives?

For all you complaining about the males here noticing her cleavage, leave it alone. It isn’t important. We are built to consider sexual attractiveness before anything else, even rational thought. Not noticing attractiveness is a learned habit that takes, in most, conscious effort to develop and may in fact be near impossible.

What is important is that we do not allow our attraction to interfere with our understanding of the message or bias us one way or the other about the speaker’s abilities. This is also true if the speaker is ‘ugly’, such as myself, or has a distracting feature. The message is more important than the appearance and it is up to the listener to avoid distraction. It is up to the speaker to help the listener do that.

While it is important to overcome our natural inclinations, we would not have built the culture we have without doing so, there are some that are not important enough to worry about, such as mentioning an attraction to another person on a blog floating randomly somewhere out in the blogverse.

Being attracted or repelled by the physical appearance of the speaker and the appreciation of the message are not exclusive. Both can be done.

Besides, I doubt that any here seriously allowed their first impression to interfere with the acceptance and understanding of the message.

Its been argued, and I would argue, **validated** by the comments of some half wits in this thread, that if anything, lack of exposure to imagery of the human body, or constant exposure to imagery that intentionally tries to “sex up” people who are fully clothed, to make products more attractive, actually has the exact opposite effect to what is “intended” by clothing them in the first place. Instead of obvious and “direct” sexual content being sexually arousing, anything that doesn’t so greatly obscure the body as to make it close to shapeless **becomes** an enticement. Like… some fracking Pavlovian response. You don’t need to “see” someone being directly and intentionally sexual, you just need someone to ring a damn bell. Which, again, is the exact opposite of what all these idiots that think “proper dress” solves some sort of problem **actually** intend.

For my part. I didn’t even notice. I *might have* ‘briefly’ noticed, if she had been buck naked. But, unlike the, “dress code patrol”, I can tell the difference between someone being sexual, and someone being just… conversational. The ones that can’t, need to get out more, and/or, have spent too much damn time looking at panty ads in Sears catalogs, rather than looking at human bodies. lol

I never imagined that I’d see *so many people* bitching about breasts… on a website of a biology professor.

————————————————————-
Obligatory/pointless Young Ones reference…

Vyvyan: OH! You mean the one with the enormous tits!
Rick: They’re minute…Vyvyan, would you stop being so sexist? They’re called breasts, and everybody has them.
Vyvyan: Well, I don’t.
Rick: Yes, and nor did Adolf Hitler!

A lot of the posts here seem obsessed. I’m with celtic evolution #152.
Second, Pete must be psychic – or psychotic given his ability to judge character based on clothing. Pete – check post 152, will ya??

Third – I see that dlm (thought it was dim – as in wit for a second) trots out the ‘atheism is a religion’ crapola. What he dinnae realize is that atheism springs from the real world and not from a bronze age story book. Science can, and indeed must be able to change as opposed to stories about the Big Sky Daddy (TM)

Finally – the gal was good looking but that in no way detracted from the content. Nice to see someone stand up once in a while and point out clearly what a crock religion is.

David N, Pete the Rookey is one of our resident trolls. He pops up every now and then saying something like he did above that sounds a bit pyschotic to a normal person, and then disappears. He thinks his opinion is worth something, but most of us consider him to be one of Heinlein’s “well meaning fools”. If he says “a”, then “b” must be true.

On the whole cleavage thing, I didn’t mind that, but I did wish that she’d pull back from the camera about 15 cm so I could see her whole face. I also didn’t think that was a great camera angle.

Now, to actually say something about the content. What she said about theists denying global because “God wouldn’t let the Earth go to shit” is clear evidence that she hasn’t been dealing with Premillennialist nutters who think that the world going to shit is part of God’s plan.

And let me add to my last comment, “and therefore we shouldn’t do anything.” And yes, there are people who think that. They’re the people who think Left Behind is an accurate forecast of what the future will be like.

#177 “For such a young person to be so far along the road to enlightenment is impressive.”

True but a real shame that sky fairy dogma makes it “impressive”. It should be the norm. And I have a hope that it will be soon.

Glad so many posts made reference to her cleavage, made me rewatch the vid to find out what all the fuss was about… Can’t see a problem with it. Girls can admire a guys butt, Guys can admire a girls – er – butt and cleavage and legs and…..etc. It makes the world go round (well not really, by saying gravity is all down to pretty green eyes is almost as silly as stating the earth is only a few thousand years old)

I am with Jeanette and Celtic-Evolution on this one. For a while there I thought I was on a fundie xian or muslim site and I was just waiting for the call to go out and stone her if she didn’t put the burka back on.

As for those of you seemingly obsessing over her so called use of her boobs, I think it says far more about you than it does about her. For I watched the video, and thought she was extremely hot. But then intelligent, passionate women have that affect on me and of course, being easy on the eye doesn’t exactly detract from her overall appeal.

However, ironically, I had not actually registered her cleavage until I read this thread and went back to look again. Wow, if that relatively little bit of cleavage gets some of you so hot and bothered perhaps, as another poster up thread suggested, you all need to get laid, or something, and soon.

As a bisexual female who’s likely only a few years older than her, I think I’m allowed to say…

She’s lovely, but damned if she didn’t also make some really great points. It’s a great call to action and I definitely feel moved to participate more. She’s right. I’ve been sitting on my ass like “this is how it is”, but that’s not how it has to be.

For those who said its been pulled, its on the Ovablastic blog just fine.

Its a great effort I think. I like the delivery of her piece.

Being really nit-picky, I’d have liked some of the written parts to be on the screen a tiny bit longer, the lighting improved (the quality might be a side-effect of You-Tube’s compression stuff, but the angle and some backlighting with a board might help; her face is washed-out a little), and a slightly better camera angle. You can tell I’m an old photography buff…! ðŸ™‚

re: the boobs thing, I can’t see what the fuss is, but if there is an issue my thought its an innocent side effect of the camera angle rather than ‘strategic placement’ as someone wrote. Besides, as the cliche goes, if you’ve got it, flaunt it!

Interesting watch. I first saw the clip without sound and saw a girl talking, the occassional flashy image and some text/numbers. I feared at some point that, with the sound, she might sound a tad emo.
I then just listened to the clip and heard a very fine list of arguments. None of them are exactly new (most of them seem to come from an almost identical YouTube movie by Imrational I believe), though she gets kuddos for the death counts and mentioning of the Cathars. Also, she does not have an emo voice, but lays out her arguments clearly. Good stuff.
I then watched it again with vid and screen. The imagery she used really supported her message in a pleasant way. Basically, it’s quite the kickass movie.

I did some further watching of other movies she had done, most of which vary in quality from nice to good. And to add to the whole cleavage discussion, she also mentions the thing about her cleavage in one of them: she has big breasts and knows that. Because, frankly, it is almost impossible for her to buy stuff that fits her properly. She has lower back pains and considered for a while to have her breasts modified to a smaller size due to that, but is against that due to her belief that body modification should be done as little as possible.
Knowing that, I’d say that anyone who comments further on her cleavage is… well… a sexist pig. Sorry to say that.

Tsarist Russian antisemitism was a Christian phenomenon, and the long history of Christian antisemitism was a factor in the holocaust, sure. However, as far as I can tell, the Nazis were neither religiously nor atheistically motivated. They were all about racism, not so much about religion.

Most of my waking hours are shaded by a sadness of realizing that, for the rest of my life, I will be living in a world filled with deluded, superstitious people. Fortunately, every so often I discover a young, energetic atheist who is unafraid to speak out, loudly, clearly and coherently.

I for one enjoyed the video, although I felt the speaker, laci, was too close to the camera. It was weird having the top of her head missing. I am not surprised by this though, as we are (most of us) not in possession of professional recording studios which are spacious and furnished with professional lighting. She’s clearly constrained by a very small shooting space.

The content was good, though some bits (as already noted) were a little sketchy or debatable. I admire her passion though, that youthful exuberance we tend to see in the mid-to-late teens. I remember being that age and feeling very passionate about various things–usually politics or perceived injustice.

A little preachy I suppose, but what the heck, she’s ticked off and she has a right to be. I can’t fault her that. The video made me think and I that was the point, yes?

Lastly, what *is* it with so many people in here who seem to think that showing a little cleavage somehow cheapens her or her message? What *is* it with so many people in here thinking that remarking on how attractive she is somehow cheapens her or the person making the remark? Friggin’ relax already. It’s perfectly normal for someone to want to look attractive. She shouldn’t have to hide her breasts for you. And by the same token, anybody who finds her attractive shouldn’t have to hide *that* for you either.

I’m as male as the next guy. I noticed her appearance, and I thought she was sexy and adorable. If saying so somehow invalidates everything I’ve said before this paragraph in your eyes, then you have personal issues which you are projecting on me–and that’s your loss, because I think I have some interesting things to say. I think laci does too.

Jeanette (#135) & Celtic_Evolution (#136) have nailed it for those of you who can’t get past the fact that you could see some cleavage, and those of you who can’t get past the fact that some thought she was attractive and had the nerve to say so.

This made me so happy to live in Sweden. Because Sweden is one of the world’s most atheist countries and according to some study I saw on wikipedia.org it’s the no.1 atheist country followed by Vietnam and Denmark.